DOCSLIB.ORG

Index of Surface-Water Records to September 30, 1970 Part 1 .-North Atlantic Slope Basins

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Index of Surface-Water Records to September 30, 1970 Part 1 .-North Atlantic Slope Basins GEOLOGICAL SURVEY CIRCULAR 651 Index of Surface-Water Records to September 30, 1970 Part 1 .-North Atlantic Slope Basins GEOLOGICAL SURVEY CIRCULAR 651 Washington 1971 United States Department of the Interior ROGERS C. B. MORTON, Secretory Geological Survey W. A. Rodlinski, Acting Director Free on appiiCatron to the U S Gealagrcal Survey Woshrngton, DC 20242 Index of Surface-Water Records to September 30, 1970 Part 1.-North Atlantic Slope Basins INTRODUCTION This report lists the streamflow and reservoir stations in the North Atlantic slope basins for which records have been or are to be published in reports of the Geological Survey for periods through September 30, 1970. It supersedes Geological Survey Circular 571. It was updated by personnel of the Data Reports Unit, Water Resources Division, Geo­ logical Survey. Basic data on surface-water supply have been published in an annual series of water-supply papers consisting of several volumes, including one each for the States of Alaska and Hawaii. The area of the other 48 States is divided into 14 parts whose boundaries coincide with certain natural drainage lines. Prior to 1951, the records for the 48 States were published in 14 volumes, one for each of the parts, From 1951 to 1960, the records for the 48 States were published annually in 18 volumes, there being 2 volumes each for Parts 1, 2, 3, and 6. Beginning in 1961, the annual series of water-supply papers on surface-water supply was changed to a 5-year series, and records for the period 1961-65 were published in 37 volumes, there being 2 or more volumes for each of 11 parts and one each for parts 10, 13, 14, 1.') (Alaska), and 16 (Hawaii and other Pacific areas). These part boundaries and the volumes within each part are shown on a map (Figure 1). Records for the 5-year period 1966-70 will be published in a similar series of water-supply papers. District offices of the Water Resources Division, Geological Survey, have also issued interim annual reports since 1961 to meet immediate local needs for streamflow records within the State or States comprising the district. Records prior to 1951 for North Atlantic slope basins are summarized in Water-Supply Papers 1301 and 1302, and those from 1951 to 1960 are summarized in Water-Supply Papers 1721 and 1722; each of these summaries lists the earlier publications in which more detailed information was published. Records for 1961-65 are published in Water­ Supply Papers 1901, 1902, and 1903; those for 1966-70 will be published in Water-Supply Papers 2101,2102, and 2103. In addition to the continuous-re_cord gaging stations, this index includes crest-stage and low-flow partial-record stations. A continuous-record station is a gaging station on a stream or reservoir for which the discharge, stage, or contents is published on a daily, weekly, or monthly basis for a continuous period of time. A crest-stage partial-record station is a streamflow station for which only the annual maximum discharge is published over a period of years for use in floodflow analyses. A low-flow partial-record station is a streamflow station for which only discharge measurements made at base flow, when streamflow is primarily from ground-water storage, are published; measurements are generally collected over a period of five years or more for use in low-flow analyses. Discharge measurements have been made at many sites and published as miscellaneous measurements; such measurements are not included in this index except those made in earlier years at sites now classified as low-flow partial-record stations. Explanation of reference marks is given at the end of the index. An alphabetical list of streams, lakes, and reservoirs is given at the end of this circular. DOWNSTREAM ORDER The stations in this index are listed in the downstream order used in the series of water-supply papers on surface­ water supply of the United States since 1951. Starting at the headwater of each stream, all stations are listed in a downstream direction. Tributary streams are indicated by indention (one indention of two spaces for each rank) and are listed between main-stem stations in downstream order as they enter the main-stem stream. Likewise, streams of less important rank are listed similarly in downstream order as they enter between stations on the stream of more important rank. If station names fail to show the complete sequence of tributaries and ranks, a stream name only is inserted to complete the series unless that series is complex and undetermined, in which case a double indention (four spaces) is used to indicate that the ranking of tributaries is incomplete. STATION NAME Station names are given in their most recently published form. Parentheses around part of a station name indicate that the enclosed word or words were used in an earlier published name of the station or as an alternate name. Paren­ thetical explanations are also used to indicate that a stream ·of a different name is the head of the main stream by use of "(head of River)" and that the name of the main stream has changed by use of "(continuation of-'---­ River)." STATION NUMBER As an added means of identification, each continuous- and partial-record station has been assigned a station number. The numbers have been assigned in the same downstream order used in this index. In assigning station numbers, gaps were left to allow for new stations that may be established; hence the numbers are not consecutive. The complet~ number for each station consists of 8 digits. The first 2 digits represent the part number and the last 6 the station number. For example, the complete number for a station in this part would be 01179500. DRAINAGE AREA The drainage area, in square miles, is the latest figure published or otherwise available at this time. PERIODS OF RECORD Under"Periods of record" are three columns. The first column, "Daily or monthly figures," shows the periods of record for continuous-record gaging stations. The dates given are the calendar years in which records began or ended; breaks of less than a year are not shown. For example, if a record began in October 1923, ended in April 1932, began again in March 19~3. and ended in September 1944, the period of record would be shown as 1923-44. The s~cond column, "Annual peaks," shows the period of record for crest-stage partial-record stations. The dates given are the water years for which the annual maximum discharge is available. The water year begins October 1 and ends September ~0. In listing the water year, only one date is shown; for example 1962 stands for the water year October 1, 1961, to September 30, 1962. The third column, "Low-flow measurements," shows the period of record for low-flow partial-record stations. The dates givenarethewateryearsinwhichbase-flow measurements were made at low-flow partial-record stations; breaks of less than two years arenotshown. Prior to the 1Q58 water year, such measurements were published in tables headed "Miscellaneous discharge measurements" or "Discharge measurements at sites other than gaging stations," Many discharge measurements have been made at miscellaneous sites which are not listed in this index because the data collected were not sufficient to qualify the site as a low-flow partial-record station. A date followed by only a dash shows that the station was continued in operation beyond September 30, 1970. A date followed by a period indicates discontinuance. A date followed by a semicolon indicates a break in the collection of records. Periods of record for the same continuous-record station published by other agencies (or available only in files of the Geological Survey or another agency) are listed only when they are for periods not published in reports of the Geological Survey. These p~riods are indicated by symbols and footnotes. Records collected by other agencies are included only for stations for which there is some record published in Geological Survey reports. EXPLANATION 2 Part number Part boundary 0 1 Q, 16 ":~ Volume number HAWAII ~ Volume boundary and Pacific V Territories. ··· .... Figure l. --Map of the United States sh01·ing area coverecl by the volumes in the series on surface-uater supply. The area covered by this VI index is shaded. ~ Periods of record Station name Station I Drainage area number (sq mi) Daily or monthly figures Annual peaks Low-flow measurements (calendar years) {water years) (water years) NORTH ATLANTIC SLOPE BASINS ST. JOHN RIVER BASIN St. John River at Ninemile Bridge, Maine ••••••••••••••• 01010000 a1,290 1950- St. John River at (near) Dickey, Maine ••••••••••••••••• 01010500 a2,700 1910-11 ;1946- Allagash River near Allagash, Maine •••••••••••••••••. 01011000 bl,250 1910-11;1931- St. Francis River at outlet of Glasier (Glazier) 01011500 520 1951- Lake, near Connors, New Brunswick. St. Francis River near St. Francis, Maine •••••••••.•• 01012000 a560 1910-11. St. John River at Fort Kent, Maine ••••••••••••••••••••• 01012500 b4,790 1906-15. Fish River at Wallagrass, Maine •••••••••••••••••••••• 01013000 860 1903-8; 1911. Fish River near Fort Kent, Maine ••••••••••••••••••••• 01013500 871 1929- St. John River (at Fort Kent) below Fish River, at 01014000 b5,690 1926- Fort Kent, Maine. Madawaska River at Ste. Rose du Degele, Quebec ••••••• 01014500 al,OlO 1910-11. Factory Brook near Madawaska, Maine •..••••••••••••••• 01014700 5.83 • ••••••••••••.••••••••••••••• 11964- St. John River at Van Buren, Maine ••••••••••••••••••••• 01015000 b8,270 1908-28. Millinocket Lake (head of Aroostook River) in T.7, 01015500 74.1 1947- R.9, Maine. Houlton Brook near Oxbow, Maine •••••••••••••••••••• 01015700 5.08 ••••••••.••••••••••••.••••••• 11964- Aroostook River near Masardis, Maine ••••••••••••••••• 01015800 888 1957- Squa Pan Lake (head of Squa Pan Stream) in T.lO, 01016000 67.1 1932- R.4, Maine.
Recommended publications
  • River Corridor Plan for the Wood-Pawcatuck Watershed, RI and CT

    River Corridor Plan for the Wood-Pawcatuck Watershed, RI and CT

    River Corridor Plan for the Wood-Pawcatuck Watershed, RI and CT Prepared for Wood-Pawcatuck Watershed Association Hope Valley, RI Prepared by John Field Field Geology Services Farmington, ME June 2016 Wood-Pawcatuck Watershed River Corridor Plan - June 2016 Page 2 of 122 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ 4 1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 5 2.0 FLUVIAL GEOMORPHOLOGY AND ITS VALUE IN CORRIDOR PLANNING ............ 6 3.0 CAUSAL FACTORS OF CHANNEL INSTABILITIES ........................................................ 7 3.1 Hydrologic regime stressors ................................................................................................. 8 3.2 Sediment regime stressors..................................................................................................... 9 4.0 DELINEATING REACHES UNDERGOING OR SENSITIVE TO ADJUSTMENTS ....... 10 4.1 Constraints to sediment transport and attenuation .............................................................. 10 4.1a Alterations in sediment regime ..................................................................................... 11 4.1b Slope modifiers and boundary conditions..................................................................... 12 4.2 Sensitivity analysis.............................................................................................................
  • NON-TIDAL BENTHIC MONITORING DATABASE: Version 3.5

    NON-TIDAL BENTHIC MONITORING DATABASE: Version 3.5

    NON-TIDAL BENTHIC MONITORING DATABASE: Version 3.5 DATABASE DESIGN DOCUMENTATION AND DATA DICTIONARY 1 June 2013 Prepared for: United States Environmental Protection Agency Chesapeake Bay Program 410 Severn Avenue Annapolis, Maryland 21403 Prepared By: Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin 51 Monroe Street, PE-08 Rockville, Maryland 20850 Prepared for United States Environmental Protection Agency Chesapeake Bay Program 410 Severn Avenue Annapolis, MD 21403 By Jacqueline Johnson Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin To receive additional copies of the report please call or write: The Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin 51 Monroe Street, PE-08 Rockville, Maryland 20850 301-984-1908 Funds to support the document The Non-Tidal Benthic Monitoring Database: Version 3.0; Database Design Documentation And Data Dictionary was supported by the US Environmental Protection Agency Grant CB- CBxxxxxxxxxx-x Disclaimer The opinion expressed are those of the authors and should not be construed as representing the U.S. Government, the US Environmental Protection Agency, the several states or the signatories or Commissioners to the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin: Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia or the District of Columbia. ii The Non-Tidal Benthic Monitoring Database: Version 3.5 TABLE OF CONTENTS BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................................. 3 INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................................................................
  • Thames River Basin Partnership Partners in Action Quarterly Report

    Thames River Basin Partnership Partners in Action Quarterly Report

    Thames River Basin Partnership Partners in Action Quarterly Report Summer 2018 Volume 47 The Thames River watershed includes the Five Mile, French, Moosup, Natchaug, Pachaug, Quinebaug, Shetucket, Willimantic, and Yantic Rivers and all their tributaries. We’re not just the "Thames main stem." Greetings from the Thames River Basin Partnership. Once again this quarter our partners have proven their ability to work cooperatively on projects compatible with the TRBP Workplan and in support of our common mission statement to share organizational resources and to develop a regional approach to natural resource protection. I hope you enjoy reading about these activities as much as I enjoy sharing information about them with you. For more information on any of these updates, just click on the blue website hyperlinks in this e-publication, but be sure to come back to finish reading the rest of the report. Jean Pillo, Watershed Conservation Project Manager Eastern Connecticut Conservation District And TRBP Coordinator Special Presentation If you missed the July 2018 meeting of the Thames River Basin Partnership, then you missed a presentation by Chuck Toal, Avalonia Land Conservancy’s development and programs director. Chuck gave a presentation on the 50 years of accomplishments of ALC as a regional land trust. ALC is focused on 22 towns in southeastern Connecticut. ALC, which oversees 4000 acres of preserved land, achieved accreditation in 2017. Their success has resulted from a working board of directors and the establishment of town committees to focus on smaller areas. Their current focus is to be more selective on land acquisition, particularly concentrating on building blocks of open space while also building an endowment fund land stewardship going forward.
  • Help DSF Achieve Significant Landmarks Small Property, Big Impact

    Help DSF Achieve Significant Landmarks Small Property, Big Impact

    *In-ter-vale n. [a blending of INTERVAL + VALE] [Americanism, Chiefly New England] low, flat land between hills or along a river. Webster’s New World Dictionary PROTECTING RIVERS AND WILD ATLANTIC SALMON SINCE 1982 Downeast Salmon Federation P.O. Box 201 Columbia Falls, Maine 04623 INTERVALE D OWNEAST S ALMON F E D ERATION Spring 2019 Documenting the Success of MEANDERS “Choosing to save a river is the Peter Gray Parr Project more often an act of passion than of careful calculation. You make the choice because the river has touched your life in an intimate and irreversible way, because you are unwilling to accept its loss." — David Bolling Photo credit: Keith Williams Help DSF Achieve Thank You to Our ince 2012, over 1 million fall Atlantic Salmon migrate erratic environmental Major Business parr (juvenile Atlantic Salmon) from the rivers to the sea) conditions. In 2018, the Shave been raised in the Peter populations resulting from the estimated total production Significant Landmarks Partners Gray Hatchery and released into PGPP are 4 times higher than was 0.73 smolt per unit of e have been very busy at DSF this events over the last year. There are the East Machias River. During smolt populations generated habitat, increasing from Wpast winter! From our community plans to add several more events this time period, the watershed from other stocking methods; 0.39 at the start of the PGPP; outreach events to our wild Atlantic throughout 2019. You can see experienced record-setting heat, • Age distribution of the PGPP • The neighboring Narraguagus Salmon hatcheries, we are constantly our upcoming schedule at www.
  • Eastern Surplus, Five-Year Review, 09-30-2006, Sdms

    Eastern Surplus, Five-Year Review, 09-30-2006, Sdms

    Superfund Records Center SITE: £•' g*- vH J ^ p BREAK: SDMS DOCID 260018 OTHER: t FIVE-YEAR REVIEW EASTERN SURPLUS COMPANY SUPERFUND SITE MEDDYBEMPS, MAINE Prepared by: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 1 Boston, Massachusetts 0<\ /\ I Susan Studlien, Director Date ' * Office of Site Remediation and Restoration ES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This is the first five-year review for the Eastern Surplus Company Superfund Site (Site). This statutory five-year review is required since hazardous contamination remains at the Site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. The review was completed in accordance with EPA guidance entitled "Comprehensive Five-Year Review Guidance," OSWER No. 9355.7-03B-P, June 2001. Starting in 1946, two owners, Harry Smith, Sr., and Harry Smith, Jr., used the Site as a storage and salvage yard. The area north of Route 191 at one time had debris/junk covering over 50% of the area, with thick vegetation covering the remaining areas. Some of the junk/surplus materials contained hazardous substances that were released into the site soils and further released into the groundwater. In 1985 Maine Department of Environmental Protection (Maine DEP) performed an inspection and identified the Site as an uncontrolled hazardous substance site. Maine DEP initiated a removal action to stabilize the Site, including removing approximately 120 transformers and other waste and fencing the Site. At the request of Maine DEP, EPA then took over the removal activities. Most of the liquid hazardous waste, drums, containers, and compressed gas cylinders were removed during the first EPA removal action in the 1980s.
  • Proposed Revisions to 314 CMR 4.00 (Tables and Figures, Clean)

    Proposed Revisions to 314 CMR 4.00 (Tables and Figures, Clean)

    Please see the 314 CMR 4.00 Summary and Notice to Reviewers document, as well as the Fact Sheets on particular topics for additional information and explanatory detail associated with these proposed regulatory changes. These documents are available on the MassDEP Website. 314 CMR: DIVISION OF WATER POLLUTION CONTROL 4.06: continued LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES* TABLE & TABLE AND CORRESPONDING FIGURE TITLE Page # FIGURE # A (Figure only) River Basins and Coastal Drainage Areas TF-2 1 Blackstone River Basin TF-3 2 Boston Harbor Drainage Area (formerly Boston Harbor Drainage System and Mystic, Neponset and Weymouth & Weir River Basins) TF-8 3 Buzzards Bay Coastal Drainage Area TF-17 4 Cape Cod Coastal Drainage Area TF-22 5 Charles River Basin TF-30 6 Chicopee River Basin TF-34 7 Connecticut River Basin TF-40 8 Deerfield River Basin TF-49 9 Farmington River Basin TF-58 10 French River Basin TF-60 11 Housatonic River Basin TF-62 12 Hudson River Basin (formerly Hoosic, Kinderhook and Bashbish) TF-70 13 Ipswich River Basin TF-76 14 Islands Coastal Drainage Area (formerly Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket) TF-79 15 Merrimack River Basin TF-81 16 Millers River Basin TF-86 17 Narragansett Bay and Mount Hope Bay Drainage Area TF-90 18 Nashua River Basin TF-93 19 North Coastal Drainage Area TF-103 20 Parker River Basin TF-109 21 Quinebaug River Basin TF-113 22 Shawsheen River Basin TF-116 23 South Coastal Drainage Area TF-118 24 Sudbury, Assabet, and Concord (SuAsCo) River Basin (formerly Concord) TF-123 25 Taunton River Basin TF-128 26 Ten Mile River Basin TF-132 27 Westfield River Basin TF-134 28 (Table only) Site-Specific Criteria TF-144 29 (Table only) GenerallyApplicable Criteria: 29a.
  • Town of Otsego Comprehensive Plan Appendices

    Town of Otsego Comprehensive Plan Appendices

    Town of Otsego Comprehensive Plan Appendices Draft (V6) March 2007 Town of Otsego Comprehensive Plan – Draft March 2007 Table of Contents Appendix A Consultants Recommendations to Implement Plan A1 Appendix B 2006 Update: Public Input B1 Appendix C 2006 Update: Profile and Inventory of Town Resources C1 Appendix D Zoning Build-out Analysis D1 Appendix E Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats Analysis E1 Appendix F 1987 Master Plan F1 Appendix G Ancillary Maps G1 See separate document for Comprehensive Plan: Section 1 Introduction Section 2 Summary of Current Conditions and Issues Section 3 Vision Statement Section 4 Goals Section 5 Strategies to Implement Goals Section 6 Mapped Resources Appendix A Consultants Recommendations to Implement Plan APPENDIX A-1 Town of Otsego Comprehensive Plan – Draft March 2007 Appendix A. Consultants Recommendations to Implement Plan This section includes strategies, actions, policy changes, programs and planning recommendations presented by the consultants (included in the plan as reference materials) that could be undertaken by the Town of Otsego to meet the goals as established in this Plan. They are organized by type of action. Recommended Strategies Regulatory and Project Review Initiatives 1. Utilize the Final GEIS on the Capacities of the Cooperstown Region in decision making in the Town of Otsego. This document analyzes and identifies potential environmental impacts to geology, aquifers, wellhead protection areas, surface water, Otsego Lake and Watershed, ambient light conditions, historic resources, visual resources, wildlife, agriculture, on-site wastewater treatment, transportation, emergency services, demographics, economic conditions, affordable housing, and tourism. This document will offer the Planning Board and other Town agencies, background information, analysis, and mitigation to be used to minimize environmental impacts of future development.
  • Boston Harbor South Watersheds 2004 Assessment Report

    Boston Harbor South Watersheds 2004 Assessment Report

    Boston Harbor South Watersheds 2004 Assessment Report June 30, 2004 Prepared for: Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs Prepared by: Neponset River Watershed Association University of Massachusetts, Urban Harbors Institute Boston Harbor Association Fore River Watershed Association Weir River Watershed Association Contents How rapidly is open space being lost?.......................................................35 Introduction ix What % of the shoreline is publicly accessible?........................................35 References for Boston Inner Harbor Watershed........................................37 Common Assessment for All Watersheds 1 Does bacterial pollution limit fishing or recreation? ...................................1 Neponset River Watershed 41 Does nutrient pollution pose a threat to aquatic life? ..................................1 Does bacterial pollution limit fishing or recreational use? ......................46 Do dissolved oxygen levels support aquatic life?........................................5 Does nutrient pollution pose a threat to aquatic life or other uses?...........48 Are there other water quality problems? ....................................................6 Do dissolved oxygen (DO) levels support aquatic life? ..........................51 Do water supply or wastewater management impact instream flows?........7 Are there other indicators that limit use of the watershed? .....................53 Roughly what percentage of the watersheds is impervious? .....................8 Do water supply,
  • 2021 State Transportation 12-YEAR PROGRAM Commission AUGUST 2020

    2021 State Transportation 12-YEAR PROGRAM Commission AUGUST 2020

    2021 State Transportation 12-YEAR PROGRAM Commission AUGUST 2020 Tom Wolf Governor Yassmin Gramian, P.E. Secretary, PA Department of Transportation Chairperson, State Transportation Commission Larry S. Shifflet Deputy Secretary for Planning State Transportation Commission 2021 12-Year Program ABOUT THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION The Pennsylvania State Transportation Commission (STC) serves as the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation’s (PennDOT) board of directors. The 15 member board evaluates the condition and performance of Pennsylvania’s transportation system and assesses the resources required to maintain, improve, and expand transportation facilities and services. State Law requires PennDOT to update Pennsylvania’s 12-Year Transportation Program (TYP) every two years for submission to the STC for adoption. PAGE i www.TalkPATransportation.com TABLE OF CONTENTS ABOUT THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION....i THE 12-YEAR PROGRAM PROCESS............................................................9 Planning and Prioritizing Projects.....................................................9 TABLE OF CONTENTS....................................................................................ii Transportation Program Review and Approval...............................10 From Planning to Projects...............................................................11 50TH ANNIVERSARY........................................................................................1 TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE.............................................13
  • Final Amendment to the Restoration Plan

    Final Amendment to the Restoration Plan

    Final Amendment to the Housatonic River Basin Final Natural Resources Restoration Plan, Environmental Assessment, and Environmental Impact Evaluation for Connecticut May 2013 State of Connecticut, Department of Energy and Environmental Protection United States Fish and Wildlife Service National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 4 2.0 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS ................................................................................................ 7 2.1 No Action Alternative ........................................................................................................... 7 2.2 Proposed Preferred Alternative ............................................................................................. 7 2.2.1 Power Line Marsh Restoration ...................................................................................... 7 2.2.2 Long Beach West Tidal Marsh Restoration ................................................................. 10 2.2.3 Pin Shop Pond Dam Removal...................................................................................... 12 2.2.4 Old Papermill Pond Dam Removal Feasibility Study ................................................. 15 2.2.5 Housatonic Watershed Habitat Continuity in Northwest Connecticut ........................ 18 2.2.6 Tingue Dam Fish Passage ...........................................................................................
  • 2019 Fish Stocking Report

    2019 Fish Stocking Report

    1 Connecticut Department of Energy & Environmental Protection Bureau of Natural Resources Fisheries Division 79 Elm Street, Hartford, CT 06106 860-424-FISH (3474) https://portal.ct.gov/DEEP/Fishing/CT-Fishing The Fish Stocking Report is published annually by the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection Katie Dykes, Commissioner Rick Jacobson, Chief, Bureau of Natural Resources Fisheries Division Pete Aarrestad, Director 79 Elm Street Hartford, CT 06106-5127 Phone 860-424-FISH (3474) Email [email protected] Web https://portal.ct.gov/DEEP/Fishing/CT-Fishing ctfishandwildlife @ctfishandwildlife Table of Contents Introduction 3 Connecticut’s Stocked Fish 3 DEEP State Fish Hatcheries 6 Connecticut’s Hatchery Raised Trout 9 When and Where are Trout Stocked? 10 Trout and Salmon Stamp 11 Youth Fishing Passport Challenge – Top Anglers 2019 12 2019 Stocking Summary 13 Trout Stocked by the Fisheries Division: Summary of Catchable Trout Stocked in 2019 14 Lakes and Ponds 15 River, Streams, and Brooks 19 Other Fish Stocked by the Fisheries Division 26 Brown Trout Fry 26 Broodstock Atlantic Salmon 27 Kokanee Salmon fry 27 Northern Pike 28 Walleye 28 Channel Catfish 29 Migratory Fish Species Stocking 30 Don’t Be a Bonehead 32 Cover: Caring for a young child can be challenging. Trevor Harvey has it covered by taking his daughter fishing. In addition to introduce the next generation of anglers to fishing, he also landed a beautiful looking rainbow trout. The Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer that is committed to complying with the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
  • RI DEM/Water Resources

    RI DEM/Water Resources

    STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT Water Resources WATER QUALITY REGULATIONS July 2006 AUTHORITY: These regulations are adopted in accordance with Chapter 42-35 pursuant to Chapters 46-12 and 42-17.1 of the Rhode Island General Laws of 1956, as amended STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT Water Resources WATER QUALITY REGULATIONS TABLE OF CONTENTS RULE 1. PURPOSE............................................................................................................ 1 RULE 2. LEGAL AUTHORITY ........................................................................................ 1 RULE 3. SUPERSEDED RULES ...................................................................................... 1 RULE 4. LIBERAL APPLICATION ................................................................................. 1 RULE 5. SEVERABILITY................................................................................................. 1 RULE 6. APPLICATION OF THESE REGULATIONS .................................................. 2 RULE 7. DEFINITIONS....................................................................................................... 2 RULE 8. SURFACE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS............................................... 10 RULE 9. EFFECT OF ACTIVITIES ON WATER QUALITY STANDARDS .............. 23 RULE 10. PROCEDURE FOR DETERMINING ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS, TREATMENT AND PRETREATMENT........... 24 RULE 11. PROHIBITED